get_states

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata only, which is a meaningful behavioral qualifier beyond the name. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a no-parameter read-only list tool, this is adequate. The 'metadata only' disclosure adds value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, scope, and a key behavioral qualifier ('metadata only') efficiently. Perfectly concise for a tool of this simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and that it returns metadata. It could specify the output format (e.g., state abbreviations vs. full names) but that is not critical for an agent deciding to call it. The overall information is sufficient for selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific information because there are none, which is appropriate. No need for further elaboration.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (US states with live contract coverage), and the scope (in the GovContractScout dataset, metadata only). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that deal with contracts, scoring, or NAICS codes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it returns a list of states with coverage and is metadata-only. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tools are all contract-focused, making the usage obvious. Lacks explicit exclusion but is sufficiently clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.